Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-02-11

/ of the amendment in the amen
datory act. This view explain
many cases which are quoted Il
, authority for t;Ic proposition that refer
/ ence to the >mrndcd law is sufficient. .
this class are S.atc rs Bowers IA Indian;
! 195. The Yellow River Improvement Go
rs. Arnold Az Wisconsin, 2l6 The Stat
er rel rs. Bankers etc. Association; .
Kansas, 500. State er rel, Harris rs
LauShlin; 15 Missouri, 361. Gatling rs
! Lane; /. Nebraska, 81. State rs l.ancas
! ter Co. /; Nebraska, So. Miller rs, Hue
ford; II Nebraska, 81. People er ret Lit
tie et al e.. WIIsca; 90 New York, 507
/ The Statr e1rel the Attorney General rs
: Mead; II Missouri, 26S.
, 1t mat be- confessed that in the Missouri
case and in the Kansas cases last refer
red To the courts Use some ungllaldeu eX
pres>i"ns not required by the cases before
them.
On the Whole | think the clear weight
of authority, and certainly sound reason,
is against the position that a reference to
= section in the title of all amendatOry
act, without more, is in any ease sufficient
For "A valuable collection of cases on this
subject, see Mr.. Freeman's notes to Davis
rs. State; 81 American Decisions, 3S1.
BY reference to the cases there cited it
| Will be seen that provisions such as that
IN our organic act are mandatory and
must be Obeyed. | give full assent to the
doctrine that courts should hesitate before
declaring an act of the legislature invalid,
but the statement is equally binding that
| courts must give effect to views of law
| clearly entertained and necessary to the
determination of causes, eveL TO the extent
at declaring laws, that are so, unconstitu-
tional.
My conclusions concerning the validity
of this law have not been hastily arrived
at. Arguments concerning law similar
ly clrcumstanccd was had before me in
my district several months ago, and l de-
ferrod decision of the question until
after the holding of this term, partly in
the hope that the question might he pre-
sented here and authoritively determined.
My associates have also had the benefit of
argument in their districts and have ex.
pressed opinions thereon before coming
here. So that we are all as well equipped
10 arrive at a correct opinion as we can
well hope to be, and as this question aris-
Is IN this case and meets us squarely, it
ought to be decided.
If the law comforting the elective fran
chlse on females, was not fruit
OF disobedienco to the wise and salutary
restraint of the organic act, as has been
charged, and if there is n public senti-
ment In the Territory which favors such a
measure the next legislature will prob
ably re. enact it. 1t will be done then, if
done all, openly and in guisc which is
not objectionable, and after full oppor.
tunity has been given the people to ex-
press their views, A measure Of such
character, involving changes in our social
ana polltlca. structures so moment0us, and
;!s many men and women believe, so
disastrous unless the measure lapse into
olsuse, ought never to be urged or passed
under any other conditions.
For the reasons hereinbefore stated |
believe the act amending section 1850 to
be In conflict with our organic act and
void. For the same reasons the act of the
legislature, approved January 90, 1856,
Statutes 1856, p. 113, is void. For the
same reasons the act approved February
=, 1886, Session Laws 1866. d. 1913. is void
except liz so far as it purports to amend
sections 3,019 and 3,0S4 of the code. These
sections, relating as they do to the mere
miDutia of conducting elections, could not,
under the title affixed to that act. be
amended 50 as to confer the elective fran
chlse on any one, nor has any amendment
OF them been attempted which would have
that effect, if valid
Females then, are not voters in this
Territory, and not being voters they are
not competent to sit on juries.
do not agree that there is error in the
record other than that committed in the
ruling on the question which have been
considering; for that error however con-
cerning which majority of us are agreed.
The Judgment of the lower court must be re-
verSed,an the cause remanded for further
proceedings. GEORGE TURNER.
Associate Justice
*NoTE,-Since writing and delivering
the above opinion, have found the case
IN - Arkansas mentioned. That case re-
lales entirely 10 declaration of the code
ei the state, 10 the effect That
none ct its provisians shall be re-
pealed unless such intention is expressly
stated, etc; no constitutional question was
involved CT